[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: New, improved dpkg-source script

Ian Jackson writes:
> Changes:
>  * Now supports `debian-special' archives.  These contain an empty
>    diff as the first thing and do not have a revision (this allows the
>    program to recognise them as being distinct both from ordinary
>    tarfiles and from `normal' source files).  In order to create one
>    you have to pass an empty string for the revision argument
>    (omitting it is just too easy).

Once again the problem of debian-special packages. Could we please find a
common way for these packages? DPKG doe snot have a revision field in either
source or binary (it's dpkg-1.1.0.*). However, creating a package like this
fails since dchanges doesn't accept it. DCHANGES (a debian-special itself)
does have a revision (dchanges-2.0-7.*). Additionally there was some talk a
while ago to use revision 0 for debian-special files. So what do we do?

Personally I think we should use a revision, at least for packages that
offer programs that may be used without Debian, too. I think about packages
like Miquel's SYSVINIT or my WATCHDOG. With revision we can distinguish
between normal changes to the software itself and changes due to the Debian



Michael Meskes 
Lehrstuhl fuer angewandte Mathematik insb. Informatik
RWTH-Aachen, D-52056 Aachen, Germany
email: meskes@informatik.rwth-aachen.de

Reply to: